This document discusses South Korea's pro-natal policies during its period of rapid economic development and the impact on women. It analyzes how the state utilized women's unpaid reproductive labor to further national development goals through family planning programs, women's cooperatives, and ideology promoting women's role in nation-building. While some rural women gained benefits, critics argue it increased women's triple burden without challenging patriarchy. The conclusion calls for shifting discourse from women's biological rights to deconstructing how development hegemony shapes reproduction and limits women's rights.

1. Expanding the Feminist Politics of
Reproduction in the Context of the
Developmental Hegemony of South
Korea
Songwoo Hur
2013

2. Content
I. The Notions of Developmental Hegemony and Feminist
Reproduction
II. Gender-blind pro-natal policy
III. Feminist Reactions
IV. Women’s Reproduction in Creating Developmental
Hegemony
V. A Feminist Appraisal
VI. Conclusion: A future?
+ Comments and Questions

3. I. The Notions of
Developmental Hegemony and Feminist Reproduction
Developmental Hegemony
 Development -> Economic growth of Korea 1960-1980
State or Neo-developmental regime?
 Hegemony
Moral system based on people’s consent -> human life, social
structure, and global governance
Feminist reproduction
 Domestic labor -> Economic and Social reproduction
Three dimensional reproduction: Economic, Biological and Socio-
political aspects

4. NRM:
Family
Planning
6.0
2.82
1.57 1.32
http://southkoreademographics.weebly.com/solutions-for-the-future.html
Pro-natal
Policy
Law for Low Fertility
& an Aging Society
• Committee
• BPLFA I (2006-9)
13.7 tril won
• Supplementary BPLFA
(2006-10)
• Abortion illegal -2009
• SMU and SMCs
• KNCW
2010
Object of policy
Unjust control over
women’s body
II. Gender-blind Pro-natal policy
Economic and
Social Development
“Miracle of the Han river”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOofhXibARc

5. III. Feminist
Reactions
KWAU
Women’s
reproductive rights
to artificial
termination
NDMRPB
Declaration of
women’s DMR
for Pregnancy,
Birth and Body
state
public
Scholars
Inefficient policy
Crises of state
competiveness
Policy
prescription
s
Women’s
right to
work in the
market

6. Saemaul Mothers’ Club (SMCs)1970-1980s
 FP
 Increasing income
 Improving living standards
 Mindset reform
IV. Women’s Reproduction in
Creating Developmental
Hegemony
(SMU)
Extensive unpaid
reproductive work
mobilized by the state
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBbtmQYAINE
• http://www.arirang.com/News/News_View.asp?nseq=183362

7. Women’s Biological
Reproduction
FP program over 30 years
 PPFK) -> 1474 FW -> 6868
FPMCs (1975-1977)
 Only 3 children -> Only 2
children
Contraceptive practice
 Sterilization: 35000 ->
235000 in 1974-1977
 2.8 m – trubal ligation
 7 m – IUDs
 Abortions increased after
after Mother and Child
Health law (1973)
State penalized women who
gave birth to more children
Women’s Economic
Reproduction
Women’s cooperatives were
paid them less
 Saemaul factories
Half the women in SMCs
participated in community
works
 Income from co-op stores
stores
->community projects
Cheap and dexterous young
female labor force -> Light
manufacturing industry
Women’s Socio-politic
Reproduction
New subject of Nation
Building
 “Kook-Min” (members of
state) ideology:
 SMU spirit
Women in FPMC devoted
time and energy to meetings
meetings and programs
 Program for leaders of
SMCs: 60-70 hours in a
week
 Educational programs
Engaged in helping
neighbors and members of
of the military, protecting

8. (+)
• Women had practical interest in reducing the number of
children
• Rural women wanted to overcome their poverty
• Rural women gained greater social status – “Kook-Min”
equally with men
(-)
• Side effects of contraceptives and abortion
• Triple burden: Work at home, Farming, and Voluntary work
• Did not transform the patriarchy and political dictatorship of
the state
The final outcome of women’s reproduction sought to re-
V. Feminist Appraisal

9.  Developmental hegemony has penetrated individuals,
mindsets, daily life, and civil society groups deeply
 Gap between the formal existence of rights and women’s
everyday lives remains unchanged
 Women’s rights = Human rights ??
 Shift from the discourse of women’s biological
rights to a struggle to deconstruct the developmental
hegemony of reproduction
VI. Conclusion: A Future?

10. • Is there any form of “developmental hegemony” over
women’s rights in your country?
a. Economic
b. Biological
c. Socio-political
• What would be ways to deconstruct the developmental
hegemony ?
• What is the main mainstream of feminist discourse and
advocacy in your society? Do they able to tackle causes
of women issues?
VII. Questions